The Chilcot Report

[zero000]

Oh I wasn't crying "it's a conspiracy" about it, I just think it's an interesting insight into his rationale.

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, zero000 said:

Oh I wasn't crying "it's a conspiracy" about it, I just think it's an interesting insight into his rationale.

Trying to get the best outcome from doing something is everyone's rationale, isn't it?

What I think is the rather stunning thing about those words is Blair feeling the need to impress those democratic values onto Bush, presumably because Blair felt Bush might not go that route.

 

[krisskross]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Trying to get the best outcome from doing something is everyone's rationale, isn't it?

What I think is the rather stunning thing about those words is Blair feeling the need to impress those democratic values onto Bush, presumably because Blair felt Bush might not go that route.

 

Yeah, there's another section where it says they cant just let another dictator take his place. 

[feral chile]

10 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

This is the overriding reason I can not vote him.  

It might be what I like most about him, given I also admired Dafydd Wigley, who was also derided for his pacifism in the face of his patriotism.

he was asked if he would kill for his country.

and he replied 'no, but I would die for it'.

How can humans call themselves an intelligent species when we can't work out our disputes without resorting to violence?

My son is a clinical psychologist, and once worked to offer training to violent offenders to rehabilitate them - to look to compromise, and alternatives to bloodshed.

not so easy when we have state sanctioned violence on the scale we do.

Edited July 7, 2016 by feral chile

[LJS]

21 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't want someone who is going to lie down and fucking die...  I want someone who is going to defend the nation!

Zombie Thatcher!  time to rise again & walk the earth!

[feral chile]

21 hours ago, krisskross said:

My memory of the talk at the time is shit (I was 15), I hadn't realised Blair specifically said in Parliament it was not about regime change. I might backtrack from being so defensive of H Benn..

The memos are fairly clear that Bush was into it specifically for regime change. Cleaning up for daddy. 

yes, this was a really big deal at the time.

[feral chile]

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Ultimately, the two things were intrinsically linked. It wouldn't be possible to act against WMD without that action also removing Saddam.

I don't think you can really call 'conspiracy' at a politician for thinking it thru to realise further consequences and benefits from the primary objective, and when that particular consequence was (when presuming normality afterwards) the best possible thing going forwards.

What's wrong about Iraq isn't that they thought thru stuff like that above, it's all of the other stuff that they did no thinking about.

I always thought this was all about oil. He was tolerated when it suited - until Kuwait.

[feral chile]

8 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't want someone who is going to lie down and fucking die...  I want someone who is going to defend the nation!

ah, 'defend the nation'.

dangerous talk that. can be interpreted in a variety of ways, including 'defend the nation' from its people.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I always thought this was all about oil. He was tolerated when it suited - until Kuwait.

Perhaps it was, tho that's not documented anywhere. No one doubts it wasn't in the mix tho.

More realistically - and documented too - are the USA's attitudes towards "enemy states". Hopefully you're aware of a senior US general's claims of being informed within a day of 9/11 that Bush (or Cheyney or Rumsfeld) had taken the decision to take out 7 states in 5 years.
(from memory these were: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan & Lebanon).

Saddam had lost the west's support before he invaded Kuwait, tho much of that loss of support is around the same shared-major-ollfield issue that Saddam gave as the reason for the invasion.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Perhaps it was, tho that's not documented anywhere. No one doubts it wasn't in the mix tho.

More realistically - and documented too - are the USA's attitudes towards "enemy states". Hopefully you're aware of a senior US general's claims of being informed within a day of 9/11 that Bush (or Cheyney or Rumsfeld) had taken the decision to take out 7 states in 5 years.
(from memory these were: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan & Lebanon).

Saddam had lost the west's support before he invaded Kuwait, tho much of that loss of support is around the same shared-major-ollfield issue that Saddam gave as the reason for the invasion.

I have a memory of hearing Bush threaten another country (can't remember which) in a speech, along the lines of 'if you're not careful, we might look for WMD' and was amazed that he could openly make threats against other countries that implied the US would bomb the shit out of everyone who didn't keep them happy.

Do you remember that?

[eFestivals]

Just now, feral chile said:

I have a memory of hearing Bush threaten another country (can't remember which) in a speech, along the lines of 'if you're not careful, we might look for WMD' and was amazed that he could openly make threats against other countries that implied the US would bomb the shit out of everyone who didn't keep them happy.

Do you remember that?

Nope.

Perhaps it another of your myths? As I tend to pay attention and that's a new one on me (tho it's not impossible it passed me by).

[russycarps]

the yanks have always been itching to take down cuba too dont forget!

 

 

[feral chile]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope.

Perhaps it another of your myths? As I tend to pay attention and that's a new one on me (tho it's not impossible it passed me by).

This one might be a false memory, the EU one definitely wasn't, though it was pre internet, so whether the claim itself was accurate I couldn't say. But there was definitely the same sort of anger within the valleys as you get within the leave camp now.  my comment at the time was to explain nationalist sentiment. Anyway, that's another topic.

[Comfy Bean]

2 minutes ago, russycarps said:

the yanks have always been itching to take down cuba too dont forget!

 

 

Excellent use of the word "itching" there russy. It sums up many of the yanks attitude to war and why blairs line about being "with them whatever "  makes me sick.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, russycarps said:

the yanks have always been itching to take down cuba too dont forget!

nah, there was too much past embarrassment about Cuba for the USA to do anything but keep isolating it.

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Or it could just mean defend the nation from foreign enemies....  

yes, by murdering millions of civilians to protect oil reserves and the economy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm

In recent weeks Iraq had accused Kuwait of flooding the world market with oil and has demanded compensation for oil produced from a disputed oil field on the border of the two countries.

In response to the news of the invasion the price of oil rose dramatically and stock markets around the world have fallen.

Edited July 8, 2016 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

This one might be a false memory, the EU one definitely wasn't, though it was pre internet

Which is a full admission that it's a myth.

I suggest you examine the facts which show you're lying, and stop trying to support a lie with further lies.

If you want to lie you need better lies, ones that simple facts don't blow away.

[feral chile]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Which is a full admission that it's a myth.

I suggest you examine the facts which show you're lying, and stop trying to support a lie with further lies.

If you want to lie you need better lies, ones that simple facts don't blow away.

No it's not, it just means I can't find anything about Objective One funding that's stretching back that far. Either proving or disproving. If you've found sites that do go back that far, please refer me to them, as I'd like to know if my friend was accurate in what he told me at the time.

As for Bush, I haven't tried corroborating that.

Why must you be so aggressive? Since I've studied Psychology, I'm aware of the risk of false memories. And I don't appreciate being called a liar by someone who thinks that of everyone who doesn't agree with your version of reality.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

yes, by murdering millions of civilians to protect oil reserves and the economy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm

In recent weeks Iraq had accused Kuwait of flooding the world market with oil and has demanded compensation for oil produced from a disputed oil field on the border of the two countries.

In response to the news of the invasion the price of oil rose dramatically and stock markets around the world have fallen.

Really, when someone has as big an aversion to all facts as you, you really should learn to keep your gob shut.

The Iraq/Kuwait oil argument wasn't something that started and a few weeks later Iraq invaded.

They'd been months (if not years) of argument about it, including a US-brokered settlement where Kuwait would have paid $9Bn to Iraq. Iraq demanded $10Bn.

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

No it's not, it just means I can't find anything about Objective One funding that's stretching back that far. Either proving or disproving. If you've found sites that do go back that far, please refer me to them, as I'd like to know if my friend was accurate in what he told me at the time.

 

when did the EU take on responsibility for development funding feral?

Objective One funding started in 2000 ... a decade after the internet.

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

nah, there was too much past embarrassment about Cuba for the USA to do anything but keep isolating it.

Rumsfeld did issue a veiled threat to cuba after Iraq, saying that if they found WMD they could attack them. Perhaps this is what feral was referring to. But I agree with you, there was never any real possibility they would risk another abject humiliation.

 

"Rumsfeld did not totally close the door to the possibility of U.S. military action in Cuba -- indicating it might happen if Havana has or develops weapons of mass 
  destruction.

  ''But if they had weapons of mass destruction, thats a different matter?'' Russert asked.

  Rumsfeld: "To the extent our country is threatened or our people are threatened, then the president and the government -- thats the first responsibility of government, is to see to the protection and security of our country.''

  While there is no specific evidence, the Bush administration said last year that it believed Cuba has ''at least a limited offensive biological warfare'' program and could be sharing its expertise with other countries that are hostile to the United States.£

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/rumsfeld.htm

 

 

 

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Why do you think that one has to lead to the other...

I want someone who will defend us from foreign enemies.  I don't give my stamp of approval on what happened in Iraq.  Stop being dumb.

Because defending the nation is defending it against financial ruin as much as anything else. I can quite easily see how Blair could have been persuaded of this.

I wouldn't like to be in the situation where I had to protect anyone from an aggressor. My reason tells me that violence is bad. My emotions hope I'd rip the throat out of anyone who touched my loved ones.

[feral chile]

 

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Which is a full admission that it's a myth.

I suggest you examine the facts which show you're lying, and stop trying to support a lie with further lies.

If you want to lie you need better lies, ones that simple facts don't blow away.

Aha! Not specifically mentioning which areas, but here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/621385.stm

But Mr Wigley claimed the crowning insult is the Government's alleged refusal to pass on all the European funds eligible for Wales.

The introduction to the document states: "The argument that Wales is dependant for its survival on the generosity of the UK Treasury is a familiar one - the analysis which follows fundamentally call this idea into question".

A Plaid Cymru spokesperson said the message of the report was that "Wales doesn't benefit as much as is made out from being a part of the UK".

Not sure if I'm thinking of this with bush:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_03/axismarch02

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

Aha! Not specifically mentioning which areas, but here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/621385.stm

But Mr Wigley claimed the crowning insult is the Government's alleged refusal to pass on all the European funds eligible for Wales.

The introduction to the document states: "The argument that Wales is dependant for its survival on the generosity of the UK Treasury is a familiar one - the analysis which follows fundamentally call this idea into question".

A Plaid Cymru spokesperson said the message of the report was that "Wales doesn't benefit as much as is made out from being a part of the UK".

An unsupported claim to back up an unsupported claim.

(and a claim by a self-serving nationalist trying to hammer the wedge)

You're outdoing yourself.

 

[feral chile]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

An unsupported claim to back up an unsupported claim.

(and a claim by a self-serving nationalist trying to hammer the wedge)

You're outdoing yourself.

 

oh I see. You can quote the man down the pub as evidence, I can't quote an ex mayor. And then find evidence to support his claim. When the conversation was in relation to why my nationalistic sympathies were raised in the first place, along with many others around these times (really from 70s and 80s.)

yes, your claim that you know my memories and experiences better than I do, are far more supported.

I quoted a Bush one in an edit, by the way. I might be thinking of the whole 'axis of evil' stuff as it unfolded.

Edited July 8, 2016 by feral chile